Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to dismay.
Her attendance at the rancidly partisan anti-ICE Grammy Awards on Sunday was a joke.
The 55-year-old Biden DEI candidate was nominated for a Grammy for narrating the audiobook of her memoir “Lovely One,” which she unashamedly believes herself to be.
But she should have stayed home rather than laughing and clapping in the audience with a bunch of virtue-signaling luvvies ranting “F–k ICE” every time they got on stage.
It should have been obvious to Jackson that the event would be politically charged.
She has to sit in judgment on various Trump administration immigration enforcement cases.
How can she be seen as impartial?
The answer is: She can’t, any more than she can be impartial on transgender-related cases after she refused to “define” a woman during her 2022 Senate confirmation.
“I’m not a biologist,” she replied to Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s (R-Tenn.) question, possibly the most embarrassing answer ever provided to Congress by a judicial nominee.
Using the same rule book Democrats have used in their prolonged attacks on conservative-leaning justices, Jackson should recuse herself from all immigration cases due to her enthusiastic involvement in the anti-ICE Grammys.
Left’s double standard
After all, the left has waged a years-long campaign to get Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito thrown off the court for such sins as holidaying with a friend who happens to be wealthy, in Thomas’ case, or in Alito’s, having a wife who flew a patriotic flag outside their home.
Liberals are sticklers about the appearance of propriety — but only for their perceived ideological opponents.
Of course, Jackson won’t recuse herself or endure any effective undermining from Republicans despite the fact that she is a left-wing activist in judicial robes, who gabs inanely during oral arguments and writes nonsensical dissents attacking her fellow justices.
The real problem with Jackson is her inability to think logically or in any way that departs from the liberal soup that she has swum in her entire privileged life.
It’s not really her fault that she’s in this position.
She doesn’t know any better, having been told all her life how special she is, when she appears not to be anything but a diligent girl who has followed a golden path.
From her upbringing in the affluent Jewish suburb of Palmetto in Miami as the daughter of two high-achieving professional parents — a school principal and an attorney — to her inevitable ascension into Harvard, graduating to a prestigious clerkship with liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, and then getting the nod from President Barack Obama to serve as a district judge for DC, her life was foreordained.
Ironically, she was chosen by President Joe Biden entirely because she is black and a woman, supposedly to make the court look “more like America.”
Yet the only group she represents is the privileged elite who haunt the halls of Harvard.
Again, we can blame Biden for the landmine he inserted into the nation’s legal DNA.
When he was a desperate straggler in the 2020 Democrat primary, it was his promise to South Carolina kingmaker Rep. Jim Clyburn that he would appoint a black female to the Supreme Court that clinched his nomination.
Boastful kingmaker
Clyburn later boasted about his role to the Washington Post: “Not a single time has a black woman ever been seriously considered. And so I took that issue up with then-candidate Biden back in 2020 … How many times have you heard it said that black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party? Well, you just can’t say, you’ve got to show it.”
The unscrupulous Biden had no qualms about drastically narrowing the field of candidates and spurning merit in the selection process, just as he did when he chose the disastrous non-entity Kamala Harris as his DEI VP — his insurance policy against being forced out of office until it was too late.
Dems were forced to run the unelectable, self-deluded Harris in 2024 due to her protected-identity status.
The same lack of humility and sense of entitlement is evident in Jackson, who, instead of being at least slightly embarrassed by the nature of her appointment and resolving to knuckle down and prove herself on her merits, came out of the gate hot.
In her first two weeks on the court, she spoke more than twice as many words as any of her colleagues, according to statistics compiled by the Empirical SCOTUS blog.
Ignoring the adage that “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt,” she has persisted with that unenviable record.
In the 2024-2025 Supreme Court term, for instance, the junior justice spoke more than 76,000 words in oral argument.
She spoke seven times more than the least loquacious — and wisest — member of the court, Thomas, whose 11,000 words were polished gems.
Her fellow liberal females on the court are the next most talkative after Jackson, but at 50,000 words from Sonia Sotomayor and 49,000 from Elena Kagan, she leaves them in the dust.
Jackson was twice as voluble as the other five justices, who spoke an average of 32,000 words each.
We can only guess how irritating her constant chatter is to her colleagues on the bench.
But we got a clue last year in a majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” wrote Barrett.
Labeling all as ‘victims’
But the most searing criticism of Jackson came in 2023, from Thomas’ concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
“Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth and well-being to label all blacks as victims …
“[She claims the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth] locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood.
“Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will ‘tell us [what] is required to level the playing field’ among castes and classifications that they alone can divine.”
Yes, Jackson may be a nice woman with an impeccable pedigree whose ill-advised decision to attend the politicized Grammys can be excused as naivete or childhood theatrical ambitions.
But her formation by the most elite institutions in the country as an insufferably entitled far-left ideologue is indeed “cancerous” to young minds, to the court, and ultimately to the nation.
Of course, that is exactly what Democrats like Biden wanted.
Miranda Devine: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson removed any shred of impartiality by applauding anti-ICE speeches at the Grammys https://t.co/RMuu0Or1Qr pic.twitter.com/CUrJJIszgb
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) February 5, 2026